MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048722139 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.122.3.629

Dissociable onset of cognitive and motivational dysfunctions following neonatal lesions of the ventral hippocampus in rats.

2008· article· en· W2048722139 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐Philippe Marquis, Sonia Goulet, François Y. Doré

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsSpontaneous alternationPsychologyHippocampusAlternation (linguistics)Developmental psychologyT-mazeCognitionWeaningPreferenceNeuroscienceTask (project management)AudiologyEndocrinologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined cognitive and motivational processes at different developmental stages in rats with neonatal ventral hippocampus (VH) lesions, an approach used to model schizophrenia. In Experiment 1, performance in a T-maze alternation task was assessed on postnatal days (PNDs) 22 and 23. VH-lesioned rats displayed a severe deficit relative to controls. In Experiment 2, behaviorally naive rats were tested for spontaneous alternation at PND 29. Alternation was intact in VH-lesioned rats only when successive alternations were separated by >5 s. In Experiment 3, motivation was tested in a cost-benefit T-maze task and in a saccharine-water preference test. Between PNDs 22-37, behaviorally naive rats with neonatal VH lesions displayed weaker saccharine preference than controls, but the 2 groups did not differ on the cost-benefit task. At adulthood, between PNDs 56-72, the difference on saccharine preference persisted and an impairment on the cost-benefit task emerged. Overall, these results suggest that working memory deficits observed at the weaning stage were not secondary to spontaneous alternation or motivation dysfunctions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207